Post #2 Ethics – Objections to the Categorical Imperative

     The categorical imperative is a well-known and well-discussed part of philosophy, with many considering it to be an impressively done moral theory. However, this is not to say that the theory comes without its problems. Many philosophers throughout the 20th century found fault with Kant's categorical imperative.

    One of the perhaps simplest objections is of the nature of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative explains that moral actions should be done out of moral duty, but many feel that to only perform moral actions according to duty is a no better option than to perform moral actions out of appeal to emotion or sympathy, as it leads to the question of whether there can even be a value placed upon the action if we merely follow rules on how to act rather than acting out of our good-natured desires. However, this can alternatively be considered a good thing. To act our of our desires or emotions can lead to a biased action or an action performed out of a negative emotion. Following a rule-based system such as the categorical imperative removes the chance of a wrong action being performed out of negative emotions such as anger or hate.

    Another objection to the categorical imperative is in regard to Kant's critique of the Golden Rule. Kant argues that the Golden Rule is inferior to his categorical imperative, as it has no binding of any kind which ensures the universality of a law or maxim. For example, "don't hit others if you don't want others to hit you" has no universal binding because should someone come along who desires others to hit them, whether out of some masochistic or self-repentant urge, then such a ruling cannot apply. However, in the negative form, the categorical imperative can be read as "do not impose unto others that which you do not wish for yourself", which sounds awfully similar to the negative form of the Golden Rule.

    The next objection to discuss is the objection of conflicting duties. In a variety of cases, many of our duties according to Kant might conflict. For example, loyalty and helpfulness might conflict. Suppose someone whom you have loyalty to, whether a friend or family member, gives you a pen to keep until they can get it back. After, someone comes and asks for a pen for their next class. Following the perfect duty to be helpful when asked for assistance, the pen should be given to the person, but this contradicts your perfect duty of loyalty, as the person that gave you the pen expects you to hold onto it. These types of conflicts can leads to big holes in the categorical imperative.

    One more objection to the categorical imperative is that of the complete disregard for consequences. A good example of this is the example of lying to a murderer. Suppose you allow some to enter your house to hide, when later a knock on the door from a killer comes and you are asked if the person is there. Supposing you know the intentions of the killer, do you tell them where the person hiding is? A reasonable person would say no, as it will likely lead to the hider's demise. According to Kant, however, it is categorically imperative not to lie, and as such you are required to tell the killer of the hider's location. This is one of the most common contests to the categorical imperative, as it allows for worse results due to the rigidity of its rules.

    Kant's categorical imperative is a rather impressive piece of work, and one which on the surface is a very clever and well-thought moral theory. However, here it is seen that it is a-far from-perfect theory, as with all moral theories.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post #3 Ethics – Utilitarianism

      For the next moral theory we look at in the ethics series, we will now look at utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a very popular and well-known moral theory because it is applied almost every day in our lives. Where other theories such as categorical imperative are used occasionally in our lives, utilitarianism is used the rest of the time when making moral  decisions, almost guaranteed.       Utilitarianism tends to have different offshoots, which we will discern later, but for now we will focus on the same overall idea between every form of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that, alternatively to Kant's categorical imperative, the rightness and wrongness of an action can only be determined by the consequences of that action. Utilitarianism is a combination of three theses: hedonism, maximalism, and universalism. Hedonism is the idea that pleasure is the highest good, and as such is the only thing...
Read more

Post #7 Free Will – Hard Determinism

      One issue that is given just as much light as ethics is the debate of free will. Since the time of the original philosophers, the question has been posited as to whether the actions of man and the universe have been predestined since the original impetus, or if destiny is malleable enough that we control our own individual fates with all events being anything but  certain. The first theory that we will look at is that of hard determinism.     Hard determinism is one of two  incompatibilist theories. I ncompatibilism  is a form of theory in the free will debate which claims that free will and determinism are unable to exist simultaneously, and one is necessarily true while the other must be necessarily false. Hard determinism is the theory which states that determinism must be true and any belief in the existence of free will is false. Hard determinism views reality almost like an endless line of dominoes. One event occurs, necessitating...
Read more

Post #4 Ethics – Criticisms of Utilitarianism

      Utilitarianism is a common moral theory, used by government's and others who oversee a population of people such that their community might thrive. However, in a moral system purposed towards the pleasure of the majority, there are bound to be problems found within the system that need to be acknowledged before ruin.     Robert Nozick is one of the most notable objectors to hedonistic utilitarianism, though more of an opponent to the hedonism part than the utilitarianism part (though it is important to note that Nozick didn't necessarily believe pleasure wasn't of intrinsic value, just that it wasn't the only intrinsically valuable thing). Nozick was the creator of one of the most difficult challenges hedonism faces today: the Experience Machine. In Nozick's Experience Machine, imagine that a machine exists that, when activated, will give the user all the experience they could want, meaning if they want all...
Read more